I know everyone meets with tough decisions at times in their lives, but adults with respect for the law follow it. People who pretend to be adults and do what's convenient rather than doing what's right then act all surprised when they find themselves in criminal court need to get a clue! At 16, having a 22 year old living in your bedroom at dad and mom's shows extremely poor judgement and immaturity; as for the 22 year old, it's just totally irresponsible and doesn't say much for him as a man. There are always other options. I won't even say what I think about these parents allowing this.

love has no age limit u ass hole. There is no law against dating. Why do people always think there is sex involved. not every one thinks about sex like that. the girl is 16 she is not that young ok. i think they all r mature enough to decide what they decided. just because u think its wrong for people to have an age difference does not mean it is wrong. u need to grow up and get over ur self. ur most likely jealous because u dont have anyone that loves u and makes u happy.

There is "potential" criminal legal risk to the 22 year old and also to the parents of the minor involved. Nothing may ever come of this, but there is a risk involved that should be considered by all parties involved.

Living under the same roof with no sexual contact would "probably" NOT raise issues; however, in light of the original question and the statement that they are "sharing a room", at the ages of 16 and 22 there would be a general assumption that sexual activity is occuring.

Typically, (and this is not based on fact, but rather our experience and research) the problems occur when there is a falling out in the relationship, or, a pregnancy, STD or some other sexually related issue is brought to the attention of a parent or someone else who is in contact with the minor. This could be a neighbor, another relative, friend, teacher, doctor, etc... Anyone who suspects wrong doing or feels laws are being violated can report this to authorities. Once a report is filed, it is up to the authority or agency receiving the report to determine it's validity and investigate, or not.

Oregon has very clear, well written laws on the subject of Age of Consent. Any situation suspected or proven to be outside the law could potentially be interpreted as a violation. In this situation, it would be the 22 year old who has criminally liability.

Another potential issue, though rare: If it is proven that parents or guardians of a minor encourage or cause a minor child within their charge to violate state laws, there is potential for legal action against the parents. Two such laws in the Oregon statutes are below. The first would probably not apply due to the age of the minor in this situation, but I wanted to post if for others to be aware of. The second law posted is more relative to this situation.

163.577 Failing to supervise a child.

(1) A person commits the offense of failing to supervise a child if the person is the parent, lawful guardian or other person lawfully charged with the care or custody of a child under 15 years of age and the child:

(a) Commits an act that brings the child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under ORS 419C.005;

(b) Violates a curfew law of a county or any other political subdivision; or

(c) Fails to attend school as required under ORS 339.010.

(2) Nothing in this section applies to a child-caring agency as defined in ORS 418.205 or to foster parents.

(3) In a prosecution of a person for failing to supervise a child under subsection (1)(a) of this section, it is an affirmative defense that the person:

(a) Is the victim of the act that brings the child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court; or

(b) Reported the act to the appropriate authorities.

(4) In a prosecution of a person for failing to supervise a child under subsection (1) of this section, it is an affirmative defense that the person took reasonable steps to control the conduct of the child at the time the person is alleged to have failed to supervise the child.

(5)(a) Except as provided in subsection (6) or (7) of this section, in a prosecution of a person for failing to supervise a child under subsection (1)(a) of this section, the court shall order the person to pay restitution under ORS 137.103 to 137.109 to a victim for economic damages arising from the act of the child that brings the child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

(b) The amount of restitution ordered under this subsection may not exceed $2,500.

(6) If a person pleads guilty or is found guilty of failing to supervise a child under this section and if the person has not previously been convicted of failing to supervise a child, the court:

(a) Shall warn the person of the penalty for future convictions of failing to supervise a child and shall suspend imposition of sentence.

(b) May not order the person to pay restitution under this section.

(7)(a) If a person pleads guilty or is found guilty of failing to supervise a child under this section and if the person has only one prior conviction for failing to supervise a child, the court, with the consent of the person, may suspend imposition of sentence and order the person to complete a parent effectiveness program approved by the court. Upon the person’s completion of the parent effectiveness program to the satisfaction of the court, the court may discharge the person. If the person fails to complete the parent effectiveness program to the satisfaction of the court, the court may impose a sentence authorized by this section.

(b) There may be only one suspension of sentence under this subsection with respect to a person.

(8) The juvenile court has jurisdiction over a first offense of failing to supervise a child under this section.

(9) Failing to supervise a child is a Class A violation. [1995 c.593 §1; 1999 c.1051 §154; 2003 c.670 §5; 2005 c.564 §8]

Note: 163.577 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 163 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Oregon Revised Statute 163.575 Endangering the welfare of a minor

(1) A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor if the person knowingly:

(a) Induces, causes or permits an unmarried person under 18 years of age to witness an act of sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse as defined by ORS 167.060; or

(b) Permits a person under 18 years of age to enter or remain in a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted; or

(c) Induces, causes or permits a person under 18 years of age to participate in gambling as defined by ORS 167.117; or

(d) Distributes, sells, or causes to be sold, tobacco in any form to a person under 18 years of age; or

(e) Sells to a person under 18 years of age any device in which tobacco, marijuana, cocaine or any controlled substance, as defined in ORS 475.005, is burned and the principal design and use of which is directly or indirectly to deliver tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke, cocaine smoke or smoke from any controlled substance into the human body including but not limited to:

(A) Pipes, water pipes, hookahs, wooden pipes, carburetor pipes, electric pipes, air driven pipes, corncob pipes, meerschaum pipes and ceramic pipes, with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads or punctured metal bowls;

(B) Carburetion tubes and devices, including carburetion masks;

(C) Bongs;

(D) Chillums;

(E) Ice pipes or chillers;

(F) Cigarette rolling papers and rolling machines; and

(G) Cocaine free basing kits.

(2) Endangering the welfare of a minor by violation of subsection (1)(a), (b), (c) or (e) of this section, involving other than a device for smoking tobacco, is a Class A misdemeanor.

(3) Endangering the welfare of a minor by violation of subsection (1)(d) of this section or by violation of subsection (1)(e) of this section, involving a device for smoking tobacco, is a Class A violation and the court shall impose a fine of not less than $100. [1971 c.743 §177; 1973 c.827 §20; 1979 c.744 §8; 1981 c.838 §1; 1983 c.740 §31; 1991 c.970 §5; 1995 c.79 §52; 1999 c.1051 §153]